Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Define "determined". Do you mean proven true. If so, no I'm not.
Underpinned /founded i.e. a causal factor. it suggests the empirical ideal of not knowing about that which we can not measure.
According to you that domain isn't science . But we cant measure what is at the other side of wormholes and it is accepted as science.The first bit is right, you can't prove it. But there are not assumed axioms. They aren't assumed true. The (mainstream) philosophy of science holds that nothing can be known to be true, so this would include the philosophy of science.
What "Mainstream" philosophy. You seem to have you philosophies of science as mixed up as you have the idea of an all encompassing rigid definition of "science" in the first place.
You also seem to be ignorant of the history of this. The Logical positivists ( who are akin to the philosophy you adopt in relation to science) .proposed a "verification principle" and resorting to logic to prove everything. But people pointed out that that principle fails when subjected to itself and so the "falsification principle" replaced it.It is circular granted but logically consistent.
Circular reasoning is specious! It IS a logical fallacy!The (mainstream) philosophy of science states that nothing can be proven scientifically so that is not relevant.
1. what is this "mainstream" philosophy
2. You have a concept of "nothing" and you claim it can be proven?Well I thought it was implied but I meant in the context of what we know.
QED Epistemology is not ontology!Yes it is. It isn't sufficient argument to demonstrate that belief in any God is a hindrance over any other fundamentalist belief. But then that wasn't the argument.
A fundamentalist belief in science relies on ideals in a way that can be applied to a fundamentalist belief in any other system- that is the argument made by me here.You seem to misunderstand what is being argued here. It isn't that God is a much much worse science blocking belief than any other science blocking belief, or that only belief in God will block science, not belief in an infallible Emperor or oracle.
You seem to miss the point that "believing" in science is just like believing in anything else.
And please don't go back to "but science can be proved" when you already admitted it is your belief that science can't prove anything!Nothing is scientifically provable. Perhaps you should rephrase that question.
Perhaps you should - you are back to "nothing" being provable again.
Actually there ARE things which are provable but the point is that not everything in science may be provable. This was replaced by suggesting that in order for something to be in science one should propose a test which could falsify it rather than prove it. But as i pointed out even this principle isn't adhered to since some things like altrernate universes cant be disproved and in fact many scientific explanations rely on parallel universes to explain causality paradoxes.0 -
-
The argument has come to a standstill allright ... and 'Big Picture' Evolution has been shown to be defunct ... and not for the first time, on this thread ... I might add.Good. Hopefully if you quote yourself enough you'll argue yourself to a standstill.
... there is a difference between valid emphasis (to highlight the essence of a particular point or quote) and mis-emphasis to make a quote seem to say something that it clearly isn't saying.Ironic too that you should complain of "mis-empahsis" when you use exclamation marks like you're on commission.0 -
*Politely steps over J C's spam*ISAW wrote:This was replaced by suggesting that in order for something to be in science one should propose a test which could falsify it rather than prove it. But as i pointed out even this principle isn't adhered to since some things like altrernate universes cant be disproved and in fact many scientific explanations rely on parallel universes to explain causality paradoxes.
Parallel universes is scientific speculation. Until we can test it with experimentation and observation, it will not be established as an accepted scientific theory.0 -
J C wrote:There is no possible link between an established fact (that Darwinian 'Big Picture' Evolution has become scientifically untenable) ... and the ramblings of Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
... but when it comes to the incoherent ramblings of some Evolutionists about Darwinian Evolution ... Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf might well feel flattered ... on the basis that imitation is the best form of flattery!!!
. I am always willing to listen to any alternative definitions ... and indeed any supporting evidence for Evolution ... but so far, the silence has been deafening on these issues ...
... plenty of wind and bluster ... but so far, no new definitions ... and no evidence at all, at all!!!
... I do support ID ... but I am not a Theistic Evolutionist IDer ... I am a Creationist IDer!!!
... now here's the thing ... I do know that 'Big Picture' Evolution is defunct ... and the fact that you don't know (or don't want to know) actually decides the debate in my favour!!!
... and are you utterly oblivious to the fact that you have left Materialistic Evolution evidentially 'naked and unloved' ... and hanging by a thread ... on this thread???
Ha ... Ha!!!
The argument has come to a standstill allright ... and 'Big Picture' Evolution has been shown to be defunct ... and not for the first time, on this thread ... I might add.
... there is a difference between valid emphasis (to highlight the essence of a particular point or quote) and mis-emphasis to make a quote seem to say something that it clearly isn't saying.
I've never met someone so adept at posting so much, but saying so little.
Also, the ability to generate 'useful' biological information via natural selection has been addressed while you were away.0 -
Advertisement
-
Underpinned /founded i.e. a causal factor. it suggests the empirical ideal of not knowing about that which we can not measure.
According to you that domain isn't science . But we cant measure what is at the other side of wormholes and it is accepted as science.
Wormholes are theoretical features of spacetime that have no observational support, so we can't measure wormholes is a more accurate statement. What would be on the other side if such a feature did exist is just normal spacetime.
So I'm not following the analogy?
The mainstream philosophy of science is the one most scientists use. Having a discussion with you when you drag up some extreme position from 50 years ago to demonstrate how I understand science wrong was getting rather tedious.What "Mainstream" philosophy.You also seem to be ignorant of the history of this. The Logical positivists ( who are akin to the philosophy you adopt in relation to science) .proposed a "verification principle" and resorting to logic to prove everything. But people pointed out that that principle fails when subjected to itself and so the "falsification principle" replaced it.
I'm well aware of this ISAW, I've heard or Karl Popper too. And if you think I'm a logical positivist you havn't followed a word I've said. I, similar to mainstream science, would view Popper falsification as far more valuable.
Only if one asserts truth or proof. Which I'm not doing.Circular reasoning is specious! It IS a logical fallacy!
For example, the statement "You might not be sure of everything" can be applied to itself. This is circular but not logically inconsistent.
See above1. what is this "mainstream" philosophy
Nope, if I claimed it can be proven I would have broken the statement, thus disproving it.2. You have a concept of "nothing" and you claim it can be proven?
You can't prove that statement scientifically, which is consistent with the statement that nothing can be proven scientifically.
I didn't claim it wasQED Epistemology is not ontology!A fundamentalist belief in science relies on ideals in a way that can be applied to a fundamentalist belief in any other system- that is the argument made by me here.
If you think that is what science is good luck to you. I'm sure you can dig up someone else who at some point in time felt the same. It isn't the position of mainstream science, but since "science" is a subjective term I'm some what at a loss of how to further explain that to you.
What is believing "in" science?You seem to miss the point that "believing" in science is just like believing in anything else.And please don't go back to "but science can be proved" when you already admitted it is your belief that science can't prove anything!
Science can't be proven, which makes you idea that people believing in science some what strange.
Maybe you are using the term different than I would but to believe in something implies to me that you trust them. You believe in God because you believe God is all knowing and therefore you trust God to know what to do, even if you don't understand at the time what is being asked.
I'm failing to see how this can be applied to science which is simply a methodology.Perhaps you should
I didn't ask a question. And by nothing I mean statement of reality.Actually there ARE things which are provable but the point is that not everything in science may be provable.
What in science is provable?This was replaced by suggesting that in order for something to be in science one should propose a test which could falsify it rather than prove it. But as i pointed out even this principle isn't adhered to since some things like altrernate universes cant be disproved and in fact many scientific explanations rely on parallel universes to explain causality paradoxes.
Alternative universes are not considered science for exact the reason you give, the predictions of the models cannot be falsified by observation.0 -
As far as I can see, both sides are engaging in reasoned civil debate ...
... the debate is sometimes robust ... but I've seen much more blood drawn at the Oxford Union!!!
... it is probably too late to salvage anything about 'Big Picture' Evolution ... which hangs unloved and unsupported on this thread!!!!
Sorry I should have said structured debate,
I still think its a good idea, however given the last part of your post above and the way this thread has been going over the last few pages I unfortunately dont think it will be happening any time soon.0 -
... there is a difference between valid emphasis (to highlight the essence of a particular point or quote) and mis-emphasis to make a quote seem to say something that it clearly isn't saying.
I bet you ten bucks even you weren't able to type that sentence without cracking up over the ridiculous irony of you, a person who has made a career on Boards.ie of misrepresenting quotes, complaining about this
Oh we have missed you JC, you crazy kook :pac:0 -
-
What in science is provable?
The theory of evolution apparently. Richard Dawkins has stated time and again that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but also a fact. This would mean that the theory of evolution has been proven or is at least provable? Do you agree with Richard?
Glossary of terms FYI:
Fact: The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept. (From Wikipedia)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »The theory of evolution apparently. Richard Dawkins has stated time and again that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but also a fact. This would mean that the theory of evolution has been proven or at least provable? Do you agree with Richard?
Glossary of terms FYI:
Fact: The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept. (From Wikipedia)
Sometimes it can be hard to draw a line between theory/inference and observation/fact. The heliocentric solar-system, for example, is technically a theory, but effectively a fact.
Normal convention regarding evolution is to classify the change and diversification of life over billions of years as fact, and the Darwinistic mechanism responsible for that diversification as theory.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »The theory of evolution apparently. Richard Dawkins has stated time and again that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but also a fact. This would mean that the theory of evolution has been proven or is at least provable? Do you agree with Richard?
Glossary of terms FYI:
Fact: The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept. (From Wikipedia)
Read the full article perhaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
And then this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
""Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence."0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »The theory of evolution apparently. Richard Dawkins has stated time and again that the theory of evolution is not just a theory anymore but also a fact. This would mean that the theory of evolution has been proven or is at least provable?
No it wouldn't. A fact is a piece of verified information (compared to say a guess or an assumption).
Something that is proven is something that has been shown to be true and cannot be wrong.
Soul Winner we have been over this so many times already why do you insist on this nonsense?
Not only do I agree with him I also understand him, which puts me at an advantage. :pac:Soul Winner wrote: »Do you agree with Richard?Soul Winner wrote: »Glossary of terms FYI:
Fact: The word fact can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept. (From Wikipedia)
There is no point quoting Dawkins and then retroactively after the fact inserting what you think Dawkins was talking about.
See here for clarification of what scientists mean when they talk about "facts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact0 -
... we have been there before ... and I demonstrated repeatedly that I never misrepresented any quote ...I bet you ten bucks even you weren't able to type that sentence without cracking up over the ridiculous irony of you, a person who has made a career on Boards.ie of misrepresenting quotes, complaining about this
... but this isn't the first time that you guys have misrepresented my writings ... here is an example of where I had to chastise Monosharp for doing so:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64616283&postcount=213830 -
... little things mean a lot ... especially when they invalidate one of the most widely held origins theories that the World has ever known ... and reduces it to metaphorical ashes!!!I've never met someone so adept at posting so much, but saying so little.
... I must have missed that during my 'enforced exile' ...Also, the ability to generate 'useful' biological information via natural selection has been addressed while you were away.
... could you give me a link please??0 -
Double post, sorry.0
-
... we have been there before ... and I demonstrated repeatedly that I never misrepresented any quote ...
Important distinction: you claimed repeatedly that you never misrepresented any quote. You have yet to demonstrate anything, on any subject.... but this isn't the first time that you guys have misrepresented my writings ... here is an example of where I had to chastise Monosharp for doing so:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64616283&postcount=21383
That was an example of monosharp satirising your methods.0 -
Wormholes are theoretical features of spacetime that have no observational support, so we can't measure wormholes is a more accurate statement. What would be on the other side if such a feature did exist is just normal spacetime.
So I'm not following the analogy?
So you BELIEVE that there is normal spacetime there?
How can you determine anything about what is there if you can never measure anything there? If you can not verify or falsify what you believe how it is "science" by you definition?
and what is "normal" spacetime? Do you mean "flat"? Even in the viscinity of the exit of the wormhole?
and your idea of flat space being ther is baced on WHAT belief exactly? You are aware that some philosophies of science view space even in our own universe with odd properties? Such as continually being created out of nothing to explain the cosmological expansion rate ? Or how about regions of the universe where standard pghysics operates under different laws? The cosmological principle is and assumption! As are homogenity isotroposm and the speed of light in a vacuum being constant.The mainstream philosophy of science is the one most scientists use. Having a discussion with you when you drag up some extreme position from 50 years ago to demonstrate how I understand science wrong was getting rather tedious.
But peoplw like Newton Einstein Galileo and others provoke what Kuhn called "revolutions" i.e. they show that what most people believe is in fact to be doubted! And now you are maKING THE DANGEROUS STATEMENT that scientific "truth" isnt about objective measurement or about what really exists out there but about what most scientists believe to be true! When most scientists believed the world was not moving and the Sun went around the earth were they true? when most believe the Earth was 10,000 years old at most was that science? You commit what is called the "genetic fallacy". You ar3e aware the world didn't just begin to move when Galileo announced it? dont confuse the statement of a fact with the cause of that fact. the origin of something is not it's cause.I'm well aware of this ISAW, I've heard or Karl Popper too. And if you think I'm a logical positivist you havn't followed a word I've said. I, similar to mainstream science, would view Popper falsification as far more valuable.
But science to you is just "what most scientists believe" ? Even if they are all wrong?
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com
circular reasoning -- Sometimes known as circulus in demonstrando, or begging the question. H.W. Fowler, in Modern English Usage, puts it this way: "The basing of two conclusions each upon the other. That the world is good follows from the known goodness of God; that God is good is known from the excellence of the world he has made."For example, the statement "You might not be sure of everything" can be applied to itself. This is circular but not logically inconsistent.
One can go from the specific to the general not the other way. you cant use a specific example to prove a general rule! You can only use it as a counter example to FALSIFY that proposed rule! You claim to know about Popper , verification and falsification and you do this? And circular reasoning Is a fallacy!
Let us see if "science can be clearly defined"
So is it " a system which can verify statements" ? No
how about "falsify " things? - NO!
so what is your definition of it?
It now appears to be "what most scientists believe" Bizzare!You can't prove that statement scientifically, which is consistent with the statement that nothing can be proven scientifically.
The problem I pointed out was in using "nothing" as a subject.If you think that is what science is good luck to you. I'm sure you can dig up someone else who at some point in time felt the same.
What I think isn't at issue here. I clearly defined ontology and epistemology. You are being asked for definitions of this "science" and you have failed to supply them. the bes you have is "mainstream" = what most scientists believe! Don't you see the problems with that?It isn't the position of mainstream science, but since "science" is a subjective term I'm some what at a loss of how to further explain that to you.
so apparently there is a "mainstream" science - which you somehow magically represent ?
This mainstream is just what most scientists believe and isn't based on being provable or falsifable? It just rests on what they believe and not proof or falsification or logical reasoning ?
i suppose you think there isn't any reality there and science is subjective?What is believing "in" science?
It would seem to be that your adherence to "mainstream science" i.e. "what most scientists believe" in spite of being able to disprove or prove what they believe! You believe in the "broad church" of scientists.Science can't be proven, which makes you idea that people believing in science some what strange.
God can't be proven either but people believe in God. Pleant of scientists believed in things they could not prove! and it turns out they were right!Maybe you are using the term different than I would but to believe in something implies to me that you trust them. You believe in God because you believe God is all knowing and therefore you trust God to know what to do, even if you don't understand at the time what is being asked.
and people don't "trust in science" or "trust in marxism" because they inherently believe it is correct? You dont "trust in engineering" so i suppose you have to measure all the stresses and strains and work out all the loading factors before you sit on any chair?I'm failing to see how this can be applied to science which is simply a methodology.
AHA! Now you are saying science = "the scientific method"
So it ISN'T about WHAT scientists believe but HOW they measure things?
so it doesnt matter if anything exists as long as you measure it correctly?
Can you see the problems associated with that?
Would you mind showing how science is this method of science?
Could you supply a definition of this "methodology"?What in science is provable?
No apparently it isn't! HOW however apparently IS provable?
How how is I await you to demonstrate.Alternative universes are not considered science for exact the reason you give, the predictions of the models cannot be falsified by observation.
Oops! Can you stop flip flopping! Now you are back to "if it isnt falsifable it isn't science"
How does that sit with your mainstream definition ? e.g. if "most scientists believe in wormholes which are not falsifable"?0 -
No it wouldn't. A fact is a piece of verified information (compared to say a guess or an assumption).
Something that is proven is something that has been shown to be true and cannot be wrong.
Soul Winner we have been over this so many times already why do you insist on this nonsense?
It is you who took the stance that science was not verification and that you knew that Popper had pointed this out.
But the point is this. Science can be verification.
Things can be verified.
But ALL things can't. Therefore all of science can't be reduced to verification.
And even if it can you can get closer and closer without getting it absolute exact verification.
That is where the idea of falsification came in.
It solves the problem of trying to verify everything. Only ONE counter example will disprove a position.
But even falsification can't cover all scientific statements.
At some level people believe something to be true or assume it to be.
Also the "cognitive turn" in the philosophy of science facilitated by Lacatos, Kuhn etc. suggested that "objective science" was at odds with sociological determined "facts" .0 -
Advertisement
-
-
No it wouldn't. A fact is a piece of verified information (compared to say a guess or an assumption).
Something that is proven is something that has been shown to be true and cannot be wrong.
Soul Winner we have been over this so many times already why do you insist on this nonsense?
Not only do I agree with him I also understand him, which puts me at an advantage. :pac:
There is no point quoting Dawkins and then retroactively after the fact inserting what you think Dawkins was talking about.
See here for clarification of what scientists mean when they talk about "facts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
You asked the question Wicknight I just answered the bloody thing. Why so defensive? You asked what in science is provable? And I said that according to R Dawkins the theory of evolution is because he calls that theory a fact. Now when someone in English speak usually says something like that they are taken at their word. When RD says that a particular theory is a fact then what he is saying is that it has been proven to be so.
When the earth was believed to be flat (by some) it took evidence to show that it was in fact not flat but round. It is now considered a fact that the earth is round and not flat. i.e the scientific method proved that the earth is round. So what is the difference between that provability and Dawkins' idea about the theory of evolution as being a fact?
No verbal gymnastics please.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »You asked the question Wicknight I just answered the bloody thing. Why so defensive? You asked what in science is provable? And I said that according to R Dawkins the theory of evolution is because he calls that theory a fact.
And this has been explained to you many times before.
Honestly this same page has been linked dozens of times about this same thing. Have you ever read it ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_factThe National Academy of Science (U.S.):
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.Now when someone in English speak usually says something like that they are taken at their word. When RD says that a particular theory is a fact then what he is saying is that it has been proven to be so.
Let's just link the page again shall we ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_factWhen the earth was believed to be flat (by some) it took evidence to show that it was in fact not flat but round.
Yes ? And ?It is now considered a fact that the earth is round and not flat. i.e the scientific method proved that the earth is round.
The Earth is not round, it is an oblate spheroid. And in 50 years they might correct this even further to something else when they can measure it more accurately.
The scientific method did not prove the Earth was round because the Earth isn't round. It also didn't prove that the Earth is an oblate spheroid because we simply cannot measure it to that kind of accuracy.
But a spherical Earth is more correct than a flat Earth. An oblate spherical Earth is more correct than a spherical Earth.So what is the difference between that provability and Dawkins' idea about the theory of evolution as being a fact?
Your complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and the terms used in Science perhaps ?0 -
... are you going to make this your signature ... in answering every poster who disagrees with you?Your complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and the terms used in Science perhaps ?
It seems to be the stock answer for practically every Materialistic Evolutionist on this thread, when faced with the irrefutible evidence for the scientific invalidity of 'Big Picture' Evolution.
When you cannot defend your argument, it is a pretty poor defense to personally attack your opponent's scientific abilities ... instead of addressing the issues raised by them!!!0 -
-
... you are correct that there are large areas of science that are axiomatic ... and there are also scientifically verified facts.It is you who took the stance that science was not verification and that you knew that Popper had pointed this out.
But the point is this. Science can be verification.
Things can be verified.
But ALL things can't. Therefore all of science can't be reduced to verification.
And even if it can you can get closer and closer without getting it absolute exact verification.
That is where the idea of falsification came in.
It solves the problem of trying to verify everything. Only ONE counter example will disprove a position.
But even falsification can't cover all scientific statements.
At some level people believe something to be true or assume it to be.
Also the "cognitive turn" in the philosophy of science facilitated by Lacatos, Kuhn etc. suggested that "objective science" was at odds with sociological determined "facts" .
'Big Picture' Evolution is purely axiomatic ... while phenomena such as Natural Selection are scientifically verified facts.
Similarly, in the case of Creation Science, there are areas that are axiomatic, such as the assumption that God created life ... and there are scientifically verified facts, like the mathematically proven, Intelligent Design of genetic information.0 -
... you expect too much Soul Winner ...Soul Winner wrote: »No verbal gymnastics please.
... Materialistic Evolutionists are 'past masters' in the art of verbal gymnastics ... they can only maintain their position on 'Big Picture' Evolution by avoiding providing any evidence for the production of the Complex Specified Functional Information found in living organisms ... and pointing instead to the (undoubted) evidence for its Natural Selection.0 -
... we have been there before ... and I demonstrated repeatedly that I never misrepresented any quote ...
... but this isn't the first time that you guys have misrepresented my writings ... here is an example of where I had to chastise Monosharp for doing so:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64616283&postcount=21383
Nonsense, we have consistently demonstrated we didn't misrepresent any of your writings. Ever.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »You asked the question Wicknight I just answered the bloody thing.
You didn't answer it. You took something Dawkins said (Evolution is a fact), took something else to try and link fact to proof (a dodgy definition on Wikipedia), and then proclaimed Dawkins is saying evolution has been scientifically proven, which he wasn't.Soul Winner wrote: »Now when someone in English speak usually says something like that they are taken at their word. When RD says that a particular theory is a fact then what he is saying is that it has been proven to be so.
No he isn't. He is saying it is a fact. And you can read all on the Internet as to what Dawkins, or any scientist, means by the term "fact".
BTW if Dawkins was saying that evolution had been scientifically proven he would be wrong, and I would have no problem saying that. My question wasn't what does Dawkins think is scientifically proven. But since he isn't even saying that it is some what of a moot point.Soul Winner wrote: »When the earth was believed to be flat (by some) it took evidence to show that it was in fact not flat but round. It is now considered a fact that the earth is round and not flat. i.e the scientific method proved that the earth is round.
In science a fact is not something that is scientifically proven. Did you read the articles I (and others) linked to?Soul Winner wrote: »No verbal gymnastics please.
The only one doing gymnastics is you, equating FACT = PROVEN when it clearly doesn't.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement